Can someone who works in FoF describe their investment process? My (cursory) understanding is you talk to managers, make notes, run the correlations between historical returns, apply some academic finance theory, and construct a portfolio of managers.
Is this really the process? Having interviewed for a lot of traditional hedge fund teams, one thing I like to figure out is whether they have a good machine for making money, good reasons for their investment process to work going forward. Strong historical returns are nice but not a sufficient condition, especially because investment processes tend to evolve over time (e.g. the Citadel today is likely not the same Citadel that lost about half in the crisis).
The job (properly done) seems to be approximately the same as what you'd do at an endowment, family office, pension fund, or even business development at a multi-manager platform (their job is to pick new PMs to bring on board and allocate capital to). How easy is it to move from one to the other?
How do you think the rigor of selecting managers at a FoF compares to that of a biz dev team at a multi-manager picking new PMs? Is there a reason the FoF business model has any reason to continue being viable, given the rise of multi-manager platforms?
bump... I dont understand how an FoF model warrants the extra fees IMO. Just go direct is my opinion to cut out the middle man. Not insulting the space, maybe I just don't know enough... I understand why Endowments are sort of a FoF model, but pure play FoFs I do not understand...
Dolore pariatur neque corrupti hic non. Et tenetur ratione repellat aut. Distinctio quaerat maiores rerum labore aliquid et animi. Autem ipsa suscipit corrupti architecto inventore sed.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...